“That may very well be true. I wasn’t commenting on that. I was commenting only the use of the term “undisputedly dated” when talking about books of the New Testament.”
I don’t think there’s much dispute over the dating of the epistles. If you know of serious questions of the dating, I’d love to know about them because I kind of follow that stuff in an amateur sort of way. Of course, there’s the standard Nero vs Dometian dispute about the dating of Revelation. But that really doesn’t affect the dating of Paul’s works.
I was responding to a post that said that Galatians is "undisputedly" dated prior to 50 AD. I know - because, like you, I also study these things in an amateur sort of way - that there are reputable, believing New Testament scholars who date Galatians to after 50 AD, though (as I said in my post) not far after.
Clearly, no epistle that is generally accepted as geuninely Pauline is going to be dated later than 60 - 65, so we're not talking about huge differences in terms of the number of years involved.
The fact is that there are academic disagreements over the dating of many, if not all of the epistles and there is disagreement over which ones are of genuinely apostolic authorship (Ephesians and Colossians for example in the Pauline tradition).
I'm not implying anything in saying this, other than to point out facts and to warn against using terms like "undisputedly" when discussing these matters.